Article: Milwaukee Brewers, Corbin Burnes Only Have One Relevant Extension Comp

[Matthew Trueblood]

A fortnight before spring training begins, the Milwaukee Brewers and their ace, Corbin Burnes, seem unlikely to reach agreement on a contract extension. Their only hope of doing so might be to look to an extension signed at a similar career stage in 2019, by then-Mets superstar Jacob deGrom. 

Corbin Burnes, 28, is set to hit free agency after the 2024 season, and while it’s been a topic of conversation all winter, the fact is that extensions with two years of team control remaining are rare. Most team-friendly extensions, with big discounts for the team and club options at the end, come sooner than this in a career, when the club can apply more leverage. Most big extensions, the kind that mark a player as a franchise cornerstone, come a year later, when the potential value of a free-agent deal has begun to crystallize and the sides can negotiate more evenly. A player’s penultimate year of team control is, contractually, an awkward phase.

 

That’s especially true for elite starting pitchers. In fact, in the last decade, only one hurler of anywhere near Burnes’s caliber has signed an extension with between four and five years of service time. It was Jacob deGrom , who signed a complicated and fascinating four-year deal with the Mets in 2019. That contract guaranteed him as much as $137.5 million, with a club option that could have taken its total value as high as $170 million. However, deGrom also had the ability to opt out after the fourth year, making the deal worth $107 million. (He did just that, of course, and signed a new pact for $185 million over five years this winter with the Rangers.)

At that point, deGrom was better than Burnes is now. Because he had been eligible for arbitration for two years before that, to Burnes’s one, he was also set to make more in 2019 than Burnes can make in 2023. However, he was two years older than Burnes is, and had significant known injury risk attached to him already. It’s not unfair to use the deGrom deal as a reference point for a potential Burnes extension.

What, then, would that look like? Well, the Brewers could pay Burnes $31 million over the first two seasons, roughly matching what he’d be projected to get via arbitration, anyway. In 2025, his salary would need to climb substantially, to somewhere just south of what a pitcher of his caliber commands on the open market. Three guaranteed years at a total of $100 million is a fair estimate. Again using deGrom’s deal as a guide, the team could add an option for a sixth year at $35 million. Burnes, though, would have the right to opt out after 2026.

Assuming a small buyout would be part of the club option, this deal would guarantee Burnes $136 million over six seasons, with the option taking it to $166 million over seven. If Burnes opted out, he would do so with $40 million left on the deal, having made $96 million in four years and with plenty of time left to sign a deGrom-like megadeal.

I know what you’re thinking. This isn’t how the Brewers do business, and they’re not going to sign him to such a contract. That’s probably true, although it’s worth pointing out that the deGrom deal included a huge chunk of deferred money, as does Christian Yelich’s current deal, so one tool for managing the budgetary implications of such a deal is already at hand for Mark Attanasio and Matt Arnold.

This exercise merely helps us see a couple of important things. Firstly, there is still some discount to be had by moving now on Burnes, using a structure that has already worked once elsewhere. He needn’t be viewed as having a $200-million price tag, unless Milwaukee waits another year to make a decision. 

Secondly, though, it reminds us that the decision and action points on Burnes are getting closer than we might otherwise think. If he’s still a Brewer next winter, everyone will know for sure that he’s not going to sign an extension, and the team’s leverage in any trade talks will decline. That doesn’t mean they should trade him now, though, because with him alongside Brandon Woodruff atop the starting rotation, they still have a fine chance to win the NL Central in 2023.

View full article

[Jake McKibbin]

I think it all depends entirely on his availability this season. If he's got any significant time out then maybe a deal like this is on the table (potentially) but the issue is he's just off the back of making 33 starts last season. If he makes 30+ this year then he's in line for a massive contract length and AAV wise, and that guaranteed money is absolutely essential given how easily a pitchers health can completely change them as baseball players. Burnes will almost certainly take a long term deal of 8-10 years and rake in, unless he needs an extra year or two to build up confidence in his durability. Obviously that isn't necessary if he's relatively healthy with a sub 3.00 ERA this season

Otherwise he's essentially risking well over a hundred million dollars just to sign earlier, and he doesn't necessarily need that security at the moment

[SF70]

Let’s get his next 2 peak years to help us win, thank him for his incredible pitching, and happily take the 31st pick in the ‘25 draft. 

[Matthew Trueblood]

30 minutes ago, SF70 said:

Let’s get his next 2 peak years to help us win, thank him for his incredible pitching, and happily take the 31st pick in the ‘25 draft. 

That’s a perfectly reasonable preference, and the CBA (with its built-in help to small-market teams in terms of compensation when a free agent walks) does make it plausible. I would note that it’s not really how the Brewers prefer to do things, as evidenced by the Josh Hader trade. They think they get more value by trading or extending in situations like these, and they don’t like missing any opportunity to maximize value. 

[wiguy94]

I came to the same conclusion last season after the deadline when Burnes said there wasn’t much extension talks. There’s just not many pitchers who sign extensions with 2 years left in arb. From my research it seemed like you either extend them before they hit arb or when they hit their last year of arb. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

23 minutes ago, Matthew Trueblood said:

That’s a perfectly reasonable preference, and the CBA (with its built-in help to small-market teams in terms of compensation when a free agent walks) does make it plausible. I would note that it’s not really how the Brewers prefer to do things, as evidenced by the Josh Hader trade. They think they get more value by trading or extending in situations like these, and they don’t like missing any opportunity to maximize value. 

A week or two ago, I floated an entirely absurd idea about Burnes that IMO, is worth throwing at the wall to see if it sticks.

Offer to buy out his remaining arb seasons at a fair guaranteed rate, then offer a one year $35-40m option with something like a $15m buyout.

The team gets one more year of Burnes to offset the difficulty of losing Burnes, Adames, and Woodruff in a single season while Burnes gets a guaranteed payday should something go horrifically wrong in the next 24 months.

[SF70]

10 minutes ago, Matthew Trueblood said:

That’s a perfectly reasonable preference, and the CBA (with its built-in help to small-market teams in terms of compensation when a free agent walks) does make it plausible. I would note that it’s not really how the Brewers prefer to do things, as evidenced by the Josh Hader trade. They think they get more value by trading or extending in situations like these, and they don’t like missing any opportunity to maximize value. 

Agree on it not being in this FO’s MO, but I believe 3 recent happenings might have changed that.

The hit the team took for the Hader trade likely eliminates a Burnes trade at one of the next 2 trade-deadlines, when the return would be the highest. Of course they would need to be in serious contention for that to be the case.

Also, teams just aren’t as willing to part with their top prospects during the offseason when teams can sign FA’s to improve and hoard their prospects.

Finally, this team has a good thing going with Tod Johnson & co, having had some really good draft success the last 3 years. Having 3-4 picks in the top 35 players (Woodruff & Adames as well) I believe wouldn’t scare them one bit.

Of course this all depends on the team being in contention.

[Brock Beauchamp]

5 minutes ago, wiguy94 said:

I came to the same conclusion last season after the deadline when Burnes said there wasn’t much extension talks. There’s just not many pitchers who sign extensions with 2 years left in arb. From my research it seemed like you either extend them before they hit arb or when they hit their last year of arb. 

Yeah, an extension at this point in the game is really rare. The player is past the point of getting them for pennies on the dollar but still not close enough to free agency to demand a payday well in excess of $100m.

The Brewers kinda screwed up by not getting one of the big three locked down last offseason before the stability of a new CBA sent MLB dollars into looney tunes land.

[Matthew Trueblood]

20 minutes ago, SF70 said:

Agree on it not being in this FO’s MO, but I believe 3 recent happenings might have changed that.

The hit the team took for the Hader trade likely eliminates a Burnes trade at one of the next 2 trade-deadlines, when the return would be the highest. Of course they would need to be in serious contention for that to be the case.

Also, teams just aren’t as willing to part with their top prospects during the offseason when teams can sign FA’s to improve and hoard their prospects.

Finally, this team has a good thing going with Tod Johnson & co, having had some really good draft success the last 3 years. Having 3-4 picks in the top 35 players (Woodruff & Adames as well) I believe wouldn’t scare them one bit.

Of course this all depends on the team being in contention.

Do we think they view the Hader trade as something negative, on the whole? The vibes that created were a problem; they’ve admitted that much. But Burnes is slightly less of a clubhouse linchpin than Hader was. The return would have to be gaudier anyway. And most of all, after turning Ruiz into Contreras, I would bet they take a pretty favorable view of their own decision-making there.

I think the chances of them letting even two of those guys get as far as free agency are virtually nil. If I’m guessing, I’m guessing one extension, one trade, and one walks for a draft pick comp, but I’d sooner bet on two trades OR two extensions than two getting to FA—let alone all three.

[MrTPlush]

24 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

A week or two ago, I floated an entirely absurd idea about Burnes that IMO, is worth throwing at the wall to see if it sticks.

Offer to buy out his remaining arb seasons at a fair guaranteed rate, then offer a one year $35-40m option with something like a $15m buyout.

The team gets one more year of Burnes to offset the difficulty of losing Burnes, Adames, and Woodruff in a single season while Burnes gets a guaranteed payday should something go horrifically wrong in the next 24 months.

He already has $20mil in career salaries if you include 2023. His 2024 salary is pretty much locked in too at that price minimum. Unless he blows out his arm this year in July or later...they would almost surely offer arby. 

Not sure we really gain much doing it...one year isn't helping us patch the titanic of outgoing players coming up.

[SF70]

1 minute ago, Matthew Trueblood said:

Do we think they view the Hader trade as something negative, on the whole? The vibes that created were a problem; they’ve admitted that much. But Burnes is slightly less of a clubhouse linchpin than Hader was. The return would have to be gaudier anyway. And most of all, after turning Ruiz into Contreras, I would bet they take a pretty favorable view of their own decision-making there.

I think the chances of them letting even two of those guys get as far as free agency are virtually nil. If I’m guessing, I’m guessing one extension, one trade, and one walks for a draft pick comp, but I’d sooner bet on two trades OR two extensions than two getting to FA—let alone all three.

I just don’t see the team trading any of the big 3 if they are in contention. Maybe an extension on Woodruff or Adames, so my guess would be — 

A Woodruff extension and the other 2 held for the picks and all-in to win.

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, MrTPlush said:

He already has $20mil in career salaries if you include 2023. His 2024 salary is pretty much locked in too at that price minimum. Unless he blows out his arm this year in July or later...they would almost surely offer arby. 

Not sure we really gain much doing it...one year isn't helping us patch the titanic of outgoing players coming up.

Oh, I think it's a long shot but it's the kind of outside-the-box thinking I'd like to see the Brewers at least try. If you guarantee Burnes a hefty payday in 2024 and 2025, it's insurance against arm/shoulder trouble. Maybe he brushes off the team immediately but it's not like it's an insulting offer. You're basically guaranteeing him over $30m with the team upside being you get him for $20-25m more for one season if he stays healthy.

[MrTPlush]

27 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Oh, I think it's a long shot but it's the kind of outside-the-box thinking I'd like to see the Brewers at least try. If you guarantee Burnes a hefty payday in 2024 and 2025, it's insurance against arm/shoulder trouble. Maybe he brushes off the team immediately but it's not like it's an insulting offer. You're basically guaranteeing him over $30m with the team upside being you get him for $20-25m more for one season if he stays healthy.

Dump the buyout and just give him $45mil-$50mil...then I think you are onto something. Not sure just giving him what he would get per year in FA for that one year is all that enticing. 

Heck, even in the freak situation he somehow gets injured and missed the entirety of 2024, some team would still pay him upwards of $20mil+ on a 1 year prove it deal for 2025 and then if he performed just sign a big contract after that. He could probably struggle in 2025 after missing all of 2024 and still get another $15mil+ prove it deal in 2026. Then after struggling in 2026 STILL get another $10mil to try again. 

The dude has been so good he already has tens of millions in future salary locked up regardless of performance or injury. Not to mention even average starters get big money these days. The only risk to him is a wildly unlikely/rare injury that ends his career completely or doing something like Trevor Bauer to the point no team will sign you. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

3 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

Dump the buyout and just give him $45mil-$50mil...then I think you are onto something. Not sure just giving him what he would get per year in FA for that one year is all that enticing. 

Heck, even in the freak situation he somehow gets injured and missed the entirety of 2024, some team would still pay him upwards of $20mil+ on a 1 year prove it deal for 2025 and then if he performed just sign a big contract after that. He could probably struggle in 2025 after missing all of 2024 and still get another $15mil+ prove it deal in 2026. Then after struggling in 2026 STILL get another $10mil to try again. 

The dude has been so good he already has tens of millions in future salary locked up regardless of performance or injury. Not to mention even average starters get big money these days. The only risk to him is a wildly unlikely/rare injury that ends his career completely or doing something like Trevor Bauer to the point no team will sign you. 

It's entirely possible it would take a massive guaranteed year. Maybe even that doesn't do it. 

[brewcrewdue80]

2 hours ago, Matthew Trueblood said:

That’s a perfectly reasonable preference, and the CBA (with its built-in help to small-market teams in terms of compensation when a free agent walks) does make it plausible. I would note that it’s not really how the Brewers prefer to do things, as evidenced by the Josh Hader trade. They think they get more value by trading or extending in situations like these, and they don’t like missing any opportunity to maximize value. 

The comparison of Hader trading away vs Burnes is a little off imo.  There's a difference SP vs RP value. Hader was going to be on his way towards records in ARB for a RP. A QO is the same amount regardless that difference. TJ risks or performance risks(losing FB velo) are more Volatile with a RP who's going to make this huge amount of money for his position.

Keeping the SP Burnes whose value will exceed the QO by far more than Hader's  is a certainty he's declines, certainty that a team signs him in FA regardless of recent performance or TJ. Which concludes a certainty the Brewers get a comp pick.  Hader has another poor season this year and requires TJ, that QO is murky. He may not be offered the QO. He could be offered, and teams or owners wait til after the draft to sign him where there no longer is a QO attached.

[Seth Stohs]

I really enjoyed this... and to see that @Matthew Trueblood's analysis was fairly similar to mine in November, I feel pretty good about it because Matthew is way smarter than me. 

 

 

[monty57]

I get the desire of fans to keep "their guys," but extensions this late are really not awarded much of a discount, so they aren't much different than signing a big-named free agent. Most people realize that the Brewers shouldn't try building the team through big-named free agents, so it seems logical that we shouldn't try building around extending guys once they're already well into their arby years.

We should try extending guys early in their pre-aby years, like we have with Braun (first deal), Lucroy, Peralta and Ashby. For the players who don't sign these early extensions, we need to realize they are going to be year-to-year players, and determine at what point it's best to trade them prior to them leaving for free agency. That's true no matter how good the player is, or how much of a "good clubhouse guy" we hear he is.

Extending any of Burnes, Woodruff, or Adames at this point would probably be a mistake. Letting them walk in free agency would definitely be a mistake.

So to me the questions are:

(1) When's the best time to trade Burnes, Woodruff, and Adames?

(2) Which of our young prospects will sign early extensions?

[SF70]

29 minutes ago, monty57 said:

I get the desire of fans to keep "their guys," but extensions this late are really not awarded much of a discount, so they aren't much different than signing a big-named free agent. Most people realize that the Brewers shouldn't try building the team through big-named free agents, so it seems logical that we shouldn't try building around extending guys once they're already well into their arby years.

We should try extending guys early in their pre-aby years, like we have with Braun (first deal), Lucroy, Peralta and Ashby. For the players who don't sign these early extensions, we need to realize they are going to be year-to-year players, and determine at what point it's best to trade them prior to them leaving for free agency. That's true no matter how good the player is, or how much of a "good clubhouse guy" we hear he is.

Extending any of Burnes, Woodruff, or Adames at this point would probably be a mistake. Letting them walk in free agency would definitely be a mistake.

So to me the questions are:

(1) When's the best time to trade Burnes, Woodruff, and Adames?

(2) Which of our young prospects will sign early extensions?

Ok, so when does the team trade the big 3? Assuming they are in contention the next two seasons.

[monty57]

2 minutes ago, SF70 said:

Ok, so when does the team trade the big 3? Assuming they are in contention the next two seasons.

We've had this discussion before, so I know what your response will be ("teams don't trade top prospects in the offseason"), but at this point we are down to trading them next offseason unless they somehow are out of it at this year's trade deadline.

Personally, I would've traded one of the pitchers this offseason, but at this point that seems highly unlikely. Therefore, next offseason it is. I believe (though I know you don't) that teams would be excited about the prospect of bringing on Cy Young talent, so I think they'd be willing to give up some value in trade.

We have talent outside of the pending free agents, but not enough to remain competitive if all we get are draft picks who won't be in the majors for several years if ever. By bringing in some more young talent in trades, we can remain a competitive ballclub for years to come. It'd probably be a step back in '24, but generally when you're trading one year of a good/great player, you get a lot of years of prospects, and you gain more "WAR value" over the next six years+ than you gave up.

We didn't make the playoffs with those three players last year, so while I think we're a playoff-caliber team, nothing would be guaranteed by hanging onto them until free agency. I look forward to watching this year's team, as I think they should be battling for a division title all season, while also seeing some of our future starters "get their feet wet" in the major. Then, I expect there will be a lot of trades, and I look forward to seeing the young talent that will be brought in, and how the future will be shaped.

[Playing Catch]

Burnes in on pace to sign the largest contract for a pitcher in the history of the game (simply because salaries keep rising, not because he's some kind of unicorn). I don't see him signing an extension. I think if the Brewers want to keep him long term, they should build up a lot of good will in the next couple of years, and then offer him that megadeal in free agency. Few of us here believe this will happen, or believe that it should happen.

For a team that is ostensibly trying to compete every year, I don't see the Brewers getting fair value back in a trade next off-season (because 1 season of Cy Young is extremely valuable to a team trying to win). I also don't believe they will trade him at the deadline (barring having an uncompetitive record, or injury issues). So I guess I'm in the camp that says the Brewers will have benefited from having one of the best starters in baseball during his prime, and for that I am thankful.

It's important to note that very good, big market teams also lose out on signing stars to extensions or out-bidding teams in free agency sometimes.

[Playing Catch]

Burnes in on pace to sign the largest contract for a pitcher in the history of the game (simply because salaries keep rising, not because he's some kind of unicorn). I don't see him signing an extension. I think if the Brewers want to keep him long term, they should build up a lot of good will in the next couple of years, and then offer him that megadeal in free agency. Few of us here believe this will happen, or believe that it should happen.

For a team that is ostensibly trying to compete every year, I don't see the Brewers getting fair value back in a trade next off-season (because 1 season of Cy Young is extremely valuable to a team trying to win). I also don't believe they will trade him at the deadline (barring having an uncompetitive record, or injury issues). So I guess I'm in the camp that says the Brewers will have benefited from having one of the best starters in baseball during his prime, and for that I am thankful.

It's important to note that very good, big market teams also lose out on signing stars to extensions or out-bidding teams in free agency sometimes.

[SF70]

45 minutes ago, monty57 said:

We've had this discussion before, so I know what your response will be ("teams don't trade top prospects in the offseason"), but at this point we are down to trading them next offseason unless they somehow are out of it at this year's trade deadline.

Personally, I would've traded one of the pitchers this offseason, but at this point that seems highly unlikely. Therefore, next offseason it is. I believe (though I know you don't) that teams would be excited about the prospect of bringing on Cy Young talent, so I think they'd be willing to give up some value in trade.

We have talent outside of the pending free agents, but not enough to remain competitive if all we get are draft picks who won't be in the majors for several years if ever. By bringing in some more young talent in trades, we can remain a competitive ballclub for years to come. It'd probably be a step back in '24, but generally when you're trading one year of a good/great player, you get a lot of years of prospects, and you gain more "WAR value" over the next six years+ than you gave up.

We didn't make the playoffs with those three players last year, so while I think we're a playoff-caliber team, nothing would be guaranteed by hanging onto them until free agency. I look forward to watching this year's team, as I think they should be battling for a division title all season, while also seeing some of our future starters "get their feet wet" in the major. Then, I expect there will be a lot of trades, and I look forward to seeing the young talent that will be brought in, and how the future will be shaped.

I also wanted Burnes traded this offseason, but I’m guessing they were quite disappointed with their feeler trade options.

I also think they should not sign any of the 3 to extentions, but if they do sign 1 I hope it’s Woodruff.

Where I differ the most is in thinking the team doesn’t have the talent in the farm to continue to contend post-big 3 with just draft-picks. I believe they do. And with 2 more drafts and 2 more minors seasons I’m confident they could even have a couple of starters ready to rotation, besides Gasser.

I don’t think the team will want to take a step back in ‘24, instead choosing to go for it again with the big 3.

[SF70]

45 minutes ago, monty57 said:

We've had this discussion before, so I know what your response will be ("teams don't trade top prospects in the offseason"), but at this point we are down to trading them next offseason unless they somehow are out of it at this year's trade deadline.

Personally, I would've traded one of the pitchers this offseason, but at this point that seems highly unlikely. Therefore, next offseason it is. I believe (though I know you don't) that teams would be excited about the prospect of bringing on Cy Young talent, so I think they'd be willing to give up some value in trade.

We have talent outside of the pending free agents, but not enough to remain competitive if all we get are draft picks who won't be in the majors for several years if ever. By bringing in some more young talent in trades, we can remain a competitive ballclub for years to come. It'd probably be a step back in '24, but generally when you're trading one year of a good/great player, you get a lot of years of prospects, and you gain more "WAR value" over the next six years+ than you gave up.

We didn't make the playoffs with those three players last year, so while I think we're a playoff-caliber team, nothing would be guaranteed by hanging onto them until free agency. I look forward to watching this year's team, as I think they should be battling for a division title all season, while also seeing some of our future starters "get their feet wet" in the major. Then, I expect there will be a lot of trades, and I look forward to seeing the young talent that will be brought in, and how the future will be shaped.

I also wanted Burnes traded this offseason, but I’m guessing they were quite disappointed with their feeler trade options.

I also think they should not sign any of the 3 to extentions, but if they do sign 1 I hope it’s Woodruff.

Where I differ the most is in thinking the team doesn’t have the talent in the farm to continue to contend post-big 3 with just draft-picks. I believe they do. And with 2 more drafts and 2 more minors seasons I’m confident they could even have a couple of starters ready to rotation, besides Gasser.

I don’t think the team will want to take a step back in ‘24, instead choosing to go for it again with the big 3.

[sveumrules]

2 hours ago, Playing Catch said:

Burnes in on pace to sign the largest contract for a pitcher in the history of the game (simply because salaries keep rising, not because he's some kind of unicorn).

He kind of is a unicorn, though.

Among 104 pitchers with at least 250 IP since 2020 he is at 428 IP (9th) | 63 ERA- (1st) | 58 FIP- (1st) | 14.0 rWAR (1st) | 14.4 fWAR (1st)

In the two seasons before signing his 9/324 mega deal Cole clocked 412 IP | 63 ERA- | 62 FIP- | 13.6 rWAR | 13.4 fWAR.

If Burnes puts up another two seasons like his last couple few he’ll be hitting FA with a track record of dominance twice as long as Cole’s was before getting 9/324.

[sveumrules]

2 hours ago, Playing Catch said:

Burnes in on pace to sign the largest contract for a pitcher in the history of the game (simply because salaries keep rising, not because he's some kind of unicorn).

He kind of is a unicorn, though.

Among 104 pitchers with at least 250 IP since 2020 he is at 428 IP (9th) | 63 ERA- (1st) | 58 FIP- (1st) | 14.0 rWAR (1st) | 14.4 fWAR (1st)

In the two seasons before signing his 9/324 mega deal Cole clocked 412 IP | 63 ERA- | 62 FIP- | 13.6 rWAR | 13.4 fWAR.

If Burnes puts up another two seasons like his last couple few he’ll be hitting FA with a track record of dominance twice as long as Cole’s was before getting 9/324.